(first) idiocy of the day
Mar. 7th, 2012 09:17 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
deird1I just read an article on breastfeeding, which contained the following:
Graphically. She is graphically breastfeeding. Much as I graphically got myself a cup of tea, graphically bought a train ticket, and graphically edited documents this morning. Horrors! *swoons*
Presumably the writer isn't trying for the ordinary, everyday use of "graphically" (of, or relating to, pictorial representation), but is instead going for the more colloquial usage ("This movie contains GRAPHIC violence, GRAPHIC pornography, and GRAPHIC puppy slaughter!!!!").
Really, either definition renders his point kind of nonsensical.
Under the first, he's complaining about her "graphically" breastfeeding because she should, like all new mothers, have the decency to acquire powers of invisibility so that her breastfeeding cannot be drawn or photographed.
Under the second, he's comparing a woman feeding her child to... mass puppy slaughter, orgies, and mayhem. Which is ridiculous.
Actually, come to think of it, he probably is going for the first meaning. After all, wouldn't it be nice if all women acquired mystical powers of invisibility, so that they didn't have to sit there and remind him that breasts exist?
Postscript
The writer also said:
In that case, what the heck is the problem? He's basically saying "Yes, breastfeeding is natural and shouldn't be shameful - but how dare you do it in public?!"
His whole disclaimer comes across as a "no offence, but..." which is really nothing more than a get-out-of-jail-free card when he then starts offending people.
What I don’t get and strongly un-concur with is why a woman would choose to graphically breastfeed her baby in a crowded city café at lunchtime.
Graphically. She is graphically breastfeeding. Much as I graphically got myself a cup of tea, graphically bought a train ticket, and graphically edited documents this morning. Horrors! *swoons*
Presumably the writer isn't trying for the ordinary, everyday use of "graphically" (of, or relating to, pictorial representation), but is instead going for the more colloquial usage ("This movie contains GRAPHIC violence, GRAPHIC pornography, and GRAPHIC puppy slaughter!!!!").
Really, either definition renders his point kind of nonsensical.
Under the first, he's complaining about her "graphically" breastfeeding because she should, like all new mothers, have the decency to acquire powers of invisibility so that her breastfeeding cannot be drawn or photographed.
Under the second, he's comparing a woman feeding her child to... mass puppy slaughter, orgies, and mayhem. Which is ridiculous.
Actually, come to think of it, he probably is going for the first meaning. After all, wouldn't it be nice if all women acquired mystical powers of invisibility, so that they didn't have to sit there and remind him that breasts exist?
Postscript
The writer also said:
I understand the evolutionary purpose of breasts, that they shouldn’t be sexualized, I get the whole feeding is natural, women shouldn’t be ashamed, blah blah, I get and concur with all of that.
In that case, what the heck is the problem? He's basically saying "Yes, breastfeeding is natural and shouldn't be shameful - but how dare you do it in public?!"
His whole disclaimer comes across as a "no offence, but..." which is really nothing more than a get-out-of-jail-free card when he then starts offending people.
no subject
Date: 2012-04-01 04:32 pm (UTC)So I think that, either way, it's about invisibility. If he can look at it and see it happening... bad. If it's more like, "Oh, feeding time," *walks off camera to a place where he cannot see, feeds, returns to camera* then it's all fine.
The key point is that the world revolves around him. Now you might be thinking, "But he can just look away and then it'll be like it's off camera." Don't be absurd. You can't expect him to just not look at things he doesn't want to see. That would be too much to ask of him. No. Things that he does not want to see must be removed from anywhere that he might see them so that he is free to look wherever he wants without risking seeing them.
Clearly.
That's what I think it's saying, at any rate. And it is, obviously, an assholic thing to say.
(This message is from chris the cynic (http://stealingcommas.blogspot.com/), who is having trouble logging in.)